- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,578
- 20,016
Founding Member
oxrageous;n245743 said:It's entirely possible there are too many lawyers on the GCMB.
What do you call 1,000 dead lawyers?
A good start.
oxrageous;n245743 said:It's entirely possible there are too many lawyers on the GCMB.
Maybe so, but this was one dude I wouldn't eff with.crosscreekcooter;n245822 said:Everybody I have ever heard of that was a Golden Gloves boxer was a champ. It's gotta be kinda like soccer, where everybody gets a trophy.
Actually, each have added nuances, or are proffering different situations, and in my case, a different jurisdiction and therefore a different statute. (Our statute doesn't have an SBI element, though there is one in the sentencing guidelines.)oxrageous;n245796 said:I notice there are three lawyers commenting in this thread, and all three say the other ones are wrong. So who are we supposed to believe?
Law98gator;n245722 said:Let me take a swing at that. I like the answer no... without more. If you intended to threaten someone with a toy gun (ie in the robbery) and you knew the gun looked real enough that they would assume it was real then it can be a crime. It's really your intent that matters.
Now, if you are playing war with your kids in your frontyard while carrying a realistic airsoft rifle, intending only to chase your kids around the house. The neighbor, Fred, sees you thinks that you have a real gun and represent a threat to him or someone else, and he shoots you. In that case it's Fred's intent (and his perception) that matters as to whether he would be charged or legally privileged to use that force.
Law98gator;n245855 said:I'm sorry. That wasn't very West Coast friendly. Let's call him Federico.
oxrageous;n245384 said:You just made all that up, didn't you?
Law98gator;n245840 said:Actually, each have added nuances, or are proffering different situations, and in my case, a different jurisdiction and therefore a different statute. (Our statute doesn't have an SBI element, though there is one in the sentencing guidelines.)
However, here is the worst news for you. Everything is this way. There is almost nothing clear in the law. It's full of weasel words like reasonably, reasonable person, should have know, foreseeable, and a ton of others. Then lawyers advance and judges adopt defenses that aren't in the statute or four prong tests to determine if this or that applies, full of weasel words in each element. You can almost always find a lawyer to argue either side of an argument.
Moreover, the C students who had a friend or relative that is a politician often became the judges, and they get to be the one to decide between the various arguments and theories. Some are like one person juries they are so unpredictable. All bets are off.
You spend the first couple of months in law school waiting for the law profs to tell you the answers only to find there are no damn answers, just good questions or good arguments.
I hope that makes you feel better.
PatDooleySucks;n245758 said:Originally posted by oxrageous View Post
It's entirely possible there are too many lawyers on the GCMB.
There are too many lawyers
dubster1;n245905 said:Originally posted by GatorJ View Post
I think Dubs got arrested.
alcoholica;n245878 said:Is it that hard to believe that one of his relatives would be stupid enough not to fight this?